Kobymaru

FAR is not killing your 300 part stations FPS. It's the single-threaded physics and excessive ressource consumption calculation. So if that's the only thing you're worried about - you shouldn't. Uhm... I don't know what to tell an aerospace student what he doesn't already know... IDK, just CoL slightly behind CoM rotate craft in the SPH to assure it stays that way. Also check that the CoM doesn't change significantly due to fuel consumption. For concrete examples, please post pictures and craft files of your craft.

Usually it's some kind of clipping. What also happend to me a lot was that I'd left my Joystick plugged in, which is slightly faulty and the control output is not centered, even if the physical stick is.

Collision of what? 2 Galaxies: most likely yes. Most of the Stars won't even notice it. 2 Suns: nope, that'd give a nice little super-nova. But it's also increadibly unlikely.

Since Galaxies are massive, but not particularly dense, I would say.... Pretty much nothing would happen. Each star system would just go their own separate lives. Except for very very few where the star systems actually interact. Kerbol and the Sun would probably not become a binary star. They'd have to get rid of huge amounts of excess velocity, and I'm pretty sure even if they kicked out each and every one of their respective planets in gravity assists, they still wouldn't shed enough velocity. Now IF they would come close (which is still pretty unlikely), they probably would disturb the system and cause an asteroid shower, a planet rearrangement or planets flying off into intergalactic space. Side note: "Kerbol" is a community name. In the game, it's always "The Sun".

Hi! I have been using KIS for ages now (and KAS) before that, and I love it! It's a must-have extension of the game. Definitely a "should be stock"-mod! Now I still have two feature requests: - Is it possible to add something like the "offset-tool" to KIS-Attachment? The way it possible now to rotate the part is already pretty good, maybe one can find something similar? - As it stands now, it is only possible to attach parts that do not have other parts attached. I understand that it's probably not easy, but is it theoretically possible to implement that?

Hi! I have a problem: my plane is rather big and heavy, about 160 tons (screenshot here) and not very maneuverable. That's exactly the reason why I want to use Pilot Assistant - if it would be easy to fly, I would do it myself. However, Pilot assistant reliably oscillates the plane apart. In lower altitudes, everything is fine. However, when getting faster and higher up, pilot assistant severely overreacts to every error and applies the control inputs way too long so it overshoots the target velocity, then tries to go back and it just gets worse and worse. The aerodynamic stress causes the ship to tear itself apart. This happens with both vertical velocity hold, as with altitude hod. Could somebody help me in tuning some parameters that pilot assistant can still control my plane?

Hi! I just noticed that Kerbal Engineer causes a massive framerate drop (to about 0.2 fps), when the ship is on escape Trajectory out of the sun, while showing time to apoapsis/periapsis data. Disabling the all sections with the time to Periapsis/Apoapsis readout fixes the Framerate, enabling it causes it to drop again. I would post my log, but there is nothing in there at all. Edit: this is now GitHub Issue #55

Please post a pic of your craft. My crystal ball tells me that your craft is not aerodynamically stable. In which case answer to your question would be: an impractical amount. Better build your ship to be stable in Atmo. Also, where are you even re-entering? What is a beacon? What are you trying to do? Precision landing under atmosphere is hard. I would suggest the Trajectories mod, but it has the problem that it cannot know how your craft will look like until you actually do stage it. I suggest putting small maneuvering engines (or RCS) on your final stage, and then correcting the reentry.

That's a shame, imho it's the best thing since sliced snacks, and it's invaluable in keeping my install up-to date. But anyway, back on topic...How about this: Both the dash-version and the spaces-version is readable by a human. So there's no harm either way, right? How about someone (let's say me) makes a pull request that changes it, and RoverDude just clicks "OK". This way, the CKAN'ers are happy and RoverDude just needs one click. Or is there any other reason why the name of the license can't change? And @qm3ster: Look man, I appreciate what you are trying to do, getting stuff into CKAN is a good thing. But you *really* need to work on communication skills! You can't just pester the dev and blame him and trying to point out that you are right and he is not. That's not helpful. This kind of tone is common in the open source world, but if we reach the Linux Kernel communication culture, this community is doomed. So how about you stop wasting your and the devs time?

I highly, *highly* disagree with your definition of useless things. Heat is a very real problem in space, and KSP has always been about making stuff hard, because it's hard in real life and then letting the player figure out solutions. Pointy aerodynamics overlays are a consequence of realistic aerodynamics, which I appreciate a lot. The previous souposphere was ridiculous, and now I actually have fun building planes and aerodynamic rockets instead of pancakes. Pancake rockets are stupid, diving head on into an atmosphere with thousands of m/s in excess velocity and then surviving this is even more stupid. Thanks to Squad for heat, thanks to Squad for Aerodynamics. I kind of agree with you here - but Squad has limited ressources (no, money alone does not make you omnipotent in developing games), and their focus was a different one. I kinda liked that focus, but I would agree that "having something to do" once you are there would be a nice cherry on top. Concept art on a website is not a game. Show me a demo, then we can talk. Let's see what Squad comes up with, before this thing even reaches alpha. Especially this quote from the article makes me sceptical: A startup with a great game idea posting concept art and ideas, without a specific time frame? Yeah, I think I've heard that story a few times.

Neat pic! Are those "active" radiators, so is there cooling fluid flowing through there? Well in the statistical thermodynamic definition of temperature, you're right - vacuum does not have particles and therefor temperature. However, if you put something in vacuum, it will eventually become 4 Kelvin because it's in equilibrium with the cosmic backroung radiation. If we stretch the definition a bit (fully knowing that it's not technically correct), we could say "vacuum has a temperature of 4 Kelvin". In our solar system, it's a lot higher because of the sun. Does somebody have a link for this? I follow devnotes pretty closely, but I seem to have missed that :/ Are you sure it's the engine that causes overheating, and not the atmosphere? If so, building a streamlined rocket helps, and you should keep it pointed mostly prograde (in surface mode!) way up until about 50km. If you are sure it's the engines, you can only build massive heatsinks to hold enough heat until you get out of the atmosphere, then deploy massive Radiators to get rid of heat. Also, is it possible that your Physics.cfg is broken? Try repairing your install (if you got KSP through steam) or reinstalling it?

Well that's perfect already!

Is it perhaps possible to clarify the "land on land" objective a bit more? The english language is a bit confusing to me (but apparently I'm not alone), I was pretty sure that "to land" meant just getting down safely on the surface. After all, even seaplanes "land" on water, don't they?

Please do upload a screenshot. Do you mean by "wobble" that the craft behaves like a noodle, so it bends and twists? Or does it stay rigid, but the nose keeps oscillating down and forth? If it's the former, yes, either you strut it to hell (beware of increased drag!) or you use KJR. If it's the latter... Well, that's hard The problem is this: Control surfaces need about 1 second to full deflection. If your craft is heavy, it only starts turning after this 1 second. But then it has built up momentum! And you overshoot your desired pitch. If you pull back, it takes a while for the control surfaces to react, then a while for your plane to start turning again... So you end up oscillating back and forth. Stock SAS is especially guilty on this. You can try one of the Pilot Assistant mods, but I did not have success with this. You can tweak the control surface deflection if you have the Stock Bugfix modules (add more control surfaces, but *less* deflection) But the only Tip I really have for you until they fix SAS is: fly carefully

Hello dear CKAN people, Thanks for your great work! I have two questions: 1) Could you please bump the "USI Kolonization Systems (MKS/OKS)" mod version. In CKAN, it is current at version 0.31.9, while the GitHub version 0.31.10 has been out for 14 days now. 2) Is this supposed to be done manually? If yes, can I help to speed thinks up? If not, what is needed so that the version gets updated automagically? I checked the netkan config file here: https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/NetKAN/blob/master/NetKAN/UKS.netkan and it seems perfectly fine to me. Yet, it has still not been updated. I'm kind of in the dark how CKAN finds and updates new versions of mods.

To answer my own question based on my experiments: 1) All resources, with certain probabilities. Always Water and Ore. Argon, Xenon and Minerals very rarely. 2) No. 3) Use the Klaw (Advanced grabbing Unit) to grab an Asteroid with a craft that has a Surface Scanner attached. The surface Scanner will show the mass composition of the asteroid with all present ressources. Sorry for the Spam, but this did not seem obvious at all to me.

Hi! So I'm reentering my plane and come down quite nicely close to the KSC. I'm about 5-10 km out and suddenly bam - wing part goes poof. I thought it just overheated (granted, I came down a bit hard). But no, the Flight log says it collided... Into the launchpad? While I am mid-flight, 5 km away (which should be out of physics range, no?)

Yeah, you can't practically change the plane from equatorial to polar in one burn. However, if you burn out to the edge of the Mun SOI, do the plane change there, and then burn back, you actually use *less* dV. About 600 m/s if I recall correctly. If you want to do a direkt KSC launch, you do the following - Launch like you would go to the regular orbit - Get an intercept, but one where the apoapsis of your trajectory crosses the muns trajectory - Halfway between Kerbin and the Mun, place a maneuver node - Focus the Mun, but in such a way that both your trajectory and the maneuver node are visible - Pull the maneuver node "up", which would be the "normal" direction until the trajectory is clearly above the pole - Play with the Prograde and Radial component of the node to move your trajectory directly over the pole - Over the pole, create a maneuver node that captures you in Mun Orbit. Do NOT circularize! The more elliptical your trajectory is (without leaving the Mun SOI), the better - Do all the burns, arrive there - At the Apoapsis (which should be far out now), create a node for a plane change. Note that this doesn't change the Inclination, but the "Longitude of Ascending Node" or whatever, but - If you set the fuelless station as target, you can now easily burn at the (relative) ascending or descending node, whichever is at the Apoapsis which is still far out. This should take super little dV (less than 30 m/s) - Once you matched the plane, you can lower the apoapsis. If I were you, I'd use the opportunity to find a rendez-vous, by placing the maneuver for the burn slightly *after* the Closest approach marker. This way, you should see the "Target Position at Closest Approach" marker rotate around when you drag the retrograde maneuver vector. Use this to align the two markers.

You're right, sorry. I meant bodies without an atmosphere. The keyword here is *eventually*. With a Life-Support mod, this kind of stuff gets significantly harder compared to stock if you have to pack several years worth of suppies. I'll do it eventually, but in the meantime I'd quite like to actually use probes to do useful things as well. I don't want to diss the mod at all, I think it's great! I just came to realize that it's nothing for me. There were several frustrations that simply make the game *less* fun instead of more. For example, manually having to switch relay satellite targets, when it would have clearly been simple to just "find a route". Or the lack of a "longer" range omnidirectional antenna that can withstand higher aerodynamic forces when active. Also, I just lost a Jool probe because it was just too difficult for me to keep the solar panels pointed at the sun before/after flying a maneuver (is it really that much fun to program HDG/ROLL/PITCH in advance?). Also, the flight computers UI is frustrating and the PID parameters are sometimes not very well tuned. Again, that's just my personal opinion. I know that all of those problems are "realistic", but the solution to most of those in real life is to program the probe to behave correctly on its own - which I just don't have the energy/skill to do. I'm kinda hoping that the 1.1 stock antenna stuff will add "challange without nuisance".

I want to use this mod to fix Eve and Jool aerobraking. However, I also don't want to completely nerf Kerbin reentries. Will this mod leave Kerbin reentries about as "deadly" as stock? I'm using stock aero and a non-rescaled (stock) solar system.

Quite frankly, my goal is that my next career save will be far, far away. I want to keep playing my current save even throughout 1.1 because I just have so much infrastructure and achievements already, that I simply don't want to go through all of that grind again and fly all of the same missions again. What I do want to change for 1.1 though: - Build UKS bases everywhere! Actually, just two (Duna and Laythe) - Dump RemoteTech. It was challenging and fun in the beginning, but it has stopped being fun quite a while ago. The Signal Delay makes unmanned landings impossible on everywhere but the Mun and maybe Minmus, and in order to use Probes that are so far out properly, I'd have to do a lot of KOS programming (which I'm not sure I'm capable of, but sure that it's just too far off for me in the challange/fun scale) - Maybe switch to USI-LS from TAC-LS. Not sure yet, though. - Finally building an Eve lander that can get back to orbit again

Sorry that docking has been such a frustrating experience Here's a few tips on how to build craft for docking: - Add Probe cores or pilots, so that you have SAS available - Add Reaction Wheels, if your craft is bigger - Balance the RCS thrusters for translation. There's a mod that helps you do that: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/35996-1-0-2-RCS-Build-Aid-v0-7-2 - Add plenty of RCS fuel so that you have many tries. For small craft about 150 units, for large craft (which you shouldn't use jus yet) about 400 units Here's a few tips on how to do the docking: - Definitely install Docking Port Alignment indicator! Honestly, I don't even know how to dock without it anymore. - Take your time, stay calm, do it step by step: 1. Use your main engine to get into the vicinity of the target craft 2. Kill all relative velocity when your are "close enough" (within 100m) 3. Active Docking Port Alignment indicator, and select the correct target docking port. 4. Right-click on the docking port of your controlled craft and select "Control from Here" 5. Activate RCS and SAS 6. Orient (rotate) your craft correctly, which means the docking port directions are parallel 7. Fix your offset on each axis one by one, using the Docking Port Alignment indicator: - Get a feel for how a marker moves when you use RCS into one direction - Pick one direction (x or y, not z just yet) and move so that the large green bar is centered. Then kill your velocity in that direction - Pick the other direction (y or x, not z just yet) and move so that the large green bar is centered. Then kill your velocity in that direction - Get closer to the target docking port (that would be z-direction) - While getting closer, fix the other axis offsets that will arise (x and y). If you feel that you can't because it's going too fast, slow down in Z again. - When you are within 2m, you can stop fixing smaller offsets in x and y because they will be amplified by the small distance in Z and because the docking ports are actually *very* magnetic and very generous. - If you feel that the other docking port has "grabbed you" magnetically, disable SAS and RCS, let go of controls and let the crafts wobble itself out. When it's done, you will be docked.

KER's fuel draw mechanics seem kind of borked at the moment ... There's a workaround, however: Right-Click on the Orange tank, and disable fuel draw from them (the small green arrow) - this will take the tanks mass into consideration, but not as usable fuel. Plus, it prevents that your launcher draws fuel from the payload.

I think I read the explanation from you in another thread, but I didn't get it unfortunately. Can you walk me through the logic of why it is better to go steeper than shallower? Because so far, my strategy was to stay in upper atmosphere as long is possible out of the reasoning that if I reduce heat spikes as much as possible, I have a longer time to radiate off all heat.

I voted Dres. Because , and Dres is a lonely space potato.